We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
47 public bills, H.R. 7520- 7566; and 5 resolutions, H.J. Res. 149; and H. Res. 1061-1064 were introduced.
Pages H2217-19
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H.R. 2870, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-496).
Page H2217
Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act
The House passed H.R. 2189, to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, by a yea-and-nay vote of 233 yeas to 185 nays, Roll No. 70.
Pages H2190-H2204
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-18 shall be considered as adopted, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. H. Res. 1057, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (S. 1383), (H.R. 2189), (H.R. 261), and (H.R. 3617) was agreed to yesterday, February 11th.
Pages H2190-91
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Thursday, February 12, 2026, through Sunday, February 22, 2026, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H2211
Clerk to Correct Engrossment
Agreed by unanimous consent that the Clerk be directed to make the changes in the engrossment of H.R. 5616 as placed at the desk.
Page H2211
Quorum Calls: Votes
One yea-and-nay vote developed during the proceedings of today and appears on page H2204. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 12:48 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 56 of 95 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend of mine, Diane Jordan. She was the first Black woman to serve on the Knox County Commission. Diane served four terms from 1992 to 2007 and was known for her passion for improving Knox County while wearing some really cool cowboy hats of hers, and that is one right there.
Diane grew up in our community and knew it better than anyone. She was always serving and looking for ways to make it better.
In a time of great division in Knoxville, she was one of those who was always in the middle of it trying to fix things with peaceful conversations, Mr. Speaker, something we don't see a lot of anymore. She is known for her sayings about working together across the aisle to bring change to the people we represented as one.
We could all take a lesson from Diane, Mr. Speaker. After four terms, she continued public service through community philanthropy and mentoring other city officials, including my friend, former Knoxville Councilwoman Gwen McKenzie.
She leaves behind her husband of 41 years, Reverend John Jordan, eight kids, and more than 20 grandkids. She has always been in my prayers. She was a dear friend.
I remember when my daddy died, she was extra kind to my mama, and I will always remember that. I remember walking with her in the Martin Luther King Day parade that was always the coldest day of year, Mr. Speaker, and every dadgum person knew her. It was like walking with a rock star. She always made me feel very special.
Diane will be missed, but I know she is with Jesus right now, and she is doing better than all of us.
Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise today to recognize extraordinary Black luminaries from central Florida for their work and impact on the community that I proudly represent.
Through tireless advocacy, they have strengthened our neighborhoods, expanded opportunity for those too often left behind, and improved the lives of countless families across Orlando: Admiral David Brewer, Alvin J. Cowans, Jennifer Desir Hilaire, Chet Glover,
Today and always, we celebrate their achievements and continue to honor Black excellence, not just Black history, but also the history we are continuing to create.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of my bill, the BRIDGE for Young Onset Alzheimer's Disease Act.
Right now, Americans diagnosed with Alzheimer's after age 65 receive immediate Medicare coverage, but those diagnosed before 65, despite facing the same devastating disease, are forced to wait nearly 29 months for the exact same care.
For the 200,000 Americans living with young-onset Alzheimer's, that delay is devastating.
The BRIDGE for YOAD Act fixes this gap by eliminating the Medicare waiting period for those with young-onset Alzheimer's. Early access to care matters. This disease progresses very quickly. Many patients lose the ability to work or support themselves long before coverage kicks in, while families are left to shoulder an additional $20,000 a year in out-of-pocket costs.
Congress has acted before for rapidly progressing diseases like ALS. We should do the same here. As one of my constituents put it, this bill puts health and dignity first.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the BRIDGE for YOAD Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize East Fullerton Little League's 70th birthday.
Little League's mission is to instill in children the values of sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty, and courage, aiming to produce well- adjusted, stronger, and happier children.
The hundreds of volunteers who take the jobs of running a Little League are usually the unsung heroes. That is why I am standing here today to recognize the Little League volunteers who have stepped up to the plate to demonstrate the benefits and values of volunteerism, family, and sportsmanship.
Let's follow the example of our Little League parents and volunteers by making a pledge to support youth in our community and to support the people who spend countless hours teaching America's favorite pastime.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the heartbreaking and inspiring story of the Santa Clarita Lady Flyers, a 12-under hockey team that plays in my district.
While on the way to the Western Girls Hockey League playoffs, a snowplow collided head-on with one of their team vans, injuring five players and killing Manny Lorenzana.
We remember Manny as a loving dad to Brody, an excellent partner to April, and a talented tattoo artist.
After such a tragic event, the team rallied together and made the decision all on their own to play on for Manny and for their injured teammates. Amazingly, in the face of hardship that came far too early for those so young, the Santa Clarita Flyers ended up taking home the championship after a nail-biting final that ended 1-0 in overtime.
Here is what I want this amazing team and their families to know: The entire Santa Clarita community has their back, and we are deeply proud of them. I can't wait to cheer them all on at the next home game next season.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the American people exactly what their tax dollars are being used for: imprisoning children, even infants.
Last month, DHS agents detained a sick 7-year-old and her parents in an urgent care parking lot while they were trying to get her medical attention.
Then they sent that child to the Nation's largest family detention facility, recently reopened by Trump, a facility where families report there is contaminated food, limited access to clean water, and where there have been confirmed measles cases.
Your tax dollars are funding this.
Last Friday, I traveled to Texas to fight to bring Diana and her family home to Oregon. I am grateful that Diana is home safe in Gresham.
This never should have happened in the first place. It is immoral to jail children. It should enrage every American that their tax dollars are being used to do so.
Congress controls the power of the purse. It is past time to reassert that authority and end this horrific practice. We must draw a bright red line: Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to imprison children. That is the bare minimum.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-18 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
TITLE II--INNOVATE LESS LETHAL TO DE-ESCALATE TAX MODERNIZATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2189.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
This bill will put lifesaving, less-lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers.
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted more than 50 years ago, it was not written with the intent to regulate less-lethal projectile devices such as tasers.
Unfortunately, if a taser or other device uses an explosive propellant to discharge the projectile, the ATF classifies it as a firearm. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement and public safety officers to obtain and use these devices.
For starters, many States prohibit public safety officers from using firearms. In at least 12 States, correctional officers are unable to carry firearms in the course of their official duties. Many State laws also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools and hospitals, meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices if they are needed.
For police departments, law enforcement officers can be unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a firearm than a less-lethal device. This includes my own State of Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the discharge of a firearm.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act is both necessary and important. H.R. 2189 makes a small but important change to the Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm to appropriately define a less-lethal projectile device.
It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only devices that are truly less lethal will pass ATF scrutiny. It also exempts these devices from the firearm excise tax, the simple logic being that police departments and manufacturers should no longer be paying a firearm tax on a device that no longer is classified as a firearm. It was never intended to apply to them in the first place, and it should not apply to them now.
By making these simple changes, we are equipping our law enforcement and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our communities safe and our first responders out of harm's way.
Innovation should be rewarded, not stifled, and this bill does just that. I thank my colleagues--Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, Congressman Stanton, and all the others who have been supportive of this--for their leadership on this issue over the last two Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2189, the so-called Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
Law enforcement officers serve a critical role in promoting public safety. That is why we must give them the tools to do their job effectively and safely.
However, contrary to what so many of my colleagues have been told, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement officers. In fact, it would put our law enforcement officers and so many others in great danger by giving dangerous people easy access to serious weapons.
By changing the definition of ``firearm,'' H.R. 2189 would create dangerous new loopholes in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, exempting so-called less-than-lethal weapons from our gun laws, including those that require firearms to be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers, like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers. These exemptions would allow these weapons, which can be deadly, to be sold to anyone, including dangerous people, without having to undergo a background check.
Law enforcement has no need for this exemption. They are already exempt from many gun laws and already use all kinds of weapons, including those covered by this bill without any legal obstacles. In fact, police departments in all 50 States already use these tasers. We also know that State and local corrections officers are armed with tasers within prisons and jails across the country.
Let's be clear: This bill is designed to increase civilian purchases of these weapons, and we know this because it
More than 3 years ago, prosecutors and legal experts at the Department of Justice sounded the alarm when they reviewed a prior version of this bill. These experts all agree that:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives warned that:
If this bill were truly about helping law enforcement, Republicans would have taken this feedback from the DOJ and the ATF and revised this bill, but they didn't. The bill before us today poses the same risk to public safety.
Many of my colleagues share my commitment to making sure law enforcement has all the tools that they need to keep themselves and our communities safe. Some of them cosponsored this legislation because they initially believed this bill was a genuine effort to do that. They have since learned the truth. Some joined Congressman Thompson's amendment, which would ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity, addressing the alleged purpose of this legislation without creating a dangerous loophole. Republicans rejected that amendment.
Now that these Members, who once cosponsored this bill, see that this bill does not help law enforcement and will, in fact, endanger police and many others, they are now opposing this bill.
We must continue providing the resources and support that strengthen officer and community safety, not undermine them by removing the safeguards that keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and violent criminals. We need to be preventing violence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that the bill itself has a ton of support, to include the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, NOBLE, Hispanic American Police Command Officers and their associations, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
Again, I think there is a ton of support out there, and there is actually a real need and a number of requests for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will save lives. It is supported, as my colleague has said, by an unprecedented, historic coalition. Support spans 95 bipartisan cosponsors across 35 States, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, African American Mayors Association, Moms Against Police Brutality, and the Prince Jones, Jr. Foundation.
This collaboration, this coalition of law enforcement leaders and community justice advocates, doesn't happen by accident. It is because this legislation is sound policy, balanced, and needed.
Modern less-than-lethal devices like the latest taser systems fully integrate with body-worn cameras, automatically capturing events and improving oversight.
These tools reduce the risk and increase transparency, expanding the evidence record around use-of-force incidents. It provides clarity for agencies, manufacturers, and regulators without--let me repeat, without--weakening gun laws.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, a very disingenuous title for a bill that doesn't mention law enforcement through the text of the bill.
This bill does weaken gun laws in this country. This bill will lead to more ghost guns across this country. I promise you that within weeks of this being passed, files will be online for people to be able to 3D print just the few parts that will be needed to transform a taser that uses gun powder to a gun that is going to be able to shoot bullets. Then, within months, people would be able to purchase the same parts online or in their local gun store.
The sponsor of this bill says that it makes it possible for law enforcement to obtain tasers. They don't need this bill to do that. In fact, this bill isn't even tailored specifically to law enforcement. It changes gun laws in this country.
Law enforcement uses tasers in all 50 States. Gun violence is already the leading cause of death for children in our country. This Congress does not need to be in the business of weakening the laws that we do have, but we do need to be in the business of doing what we need to do to end gun violence in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind Members, again, that a lot of the accusations that this will create other avenues for individuals to get firearms is just not true. To be classified as a less-than-lethal device under this bill, the device may not accept firearm ammunition. I don't know how much clearer that can be.
There are no firearm magazines involved with these weapons at all, and they do not have high-velocity projectiles.
There are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to paint this as if it is being extended to other firearms. It is not.
This would also prevent these ideas from taking hold amongst discussions about ghost guns, which is something that is out there on the street. For any weapon that also has kits that can be converted to a firearm, it doesn't apply to them.
This bill also requires ATF to deny classification to any device that could be readily modified into a firearm.
I know there is a lot of hearsay, a lot of thoughts about where this could go in the future, but, quite honestly, that is not the way this bill was drafted. It is not going to lend itself to being used that way.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia for her extraordinary leadership for gun safety and public safety in America.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would rip a dangerous new loophole in the Gun Control Act by changing the definition of firearm throughout the entire criminal code to exclude from coverage certain less-than-lethal but still highly dangerous weapons, such as tasers, which have been identified as a contributing factor in more than 500 deaths throughout the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would exempt these weapons, which are currently classified as firearms, from all regulations under all Federal firearm laws. These weapons would be exempted from the laws, regardless of who uses, purchases, possesses, or manufactures them.
Mr. Speaker, 20 million people who are presently not allowed to possess or buy firearms in this country--convicted domestic abuses, convicted felons in every State, fugitives, and other prohibited purchasers--would legally be able to buy these dangerous weapons, like tasers, that are designed to incapacitate their targets.
A convicted domestic felon, who has been deprived of his right to have firearms because he has been proven to be
The bill exempts these weapons from the requirement that they have a serial number and that they be traceable so that law enforcement can identify their owners if they are used in violent crimes.
It would also exempt them from the Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires that firearms be detectable by metal detectors and X-ray machines used at airports. This detection element is key to preventing weapons from getting where they shouldn't be and preventing serious crimes.
If the bill becomes law, nothing would stop a convicted felon or a convicted domestic violence abuser from purchasing an undetectable taser and smuggling that weapon past security, onto an airplane, into a school area, indeed, into the Capitol, unbeknownst to anyone before it is too late. The bill would make everybody less safe.
Supporters say it is needed so law enforcement can use these less- than-lethal weapons. Mr. Speaker, 18,000 law enforcement agencies are already exempt from many of the provisions in this act and are already using taser technologies. Everybody knows that police have access to tasers. Police departments in all 50 States are using tasers today.
Likewise, the tax exemption in this bill does nothing for law enforcement agencies either because they already purchase these weapons completely free of the excise tax.
The combination of these exemptions is no accident. They do nothing for law enforcement. They both provide unfettered, even tax-free, access to dangerous weapons to civilians, including at least 20 million who shouldn't have them and wouldn't have them under current law.
Supporters argue the change is needed because the classification of these weapons as firearms may result in the use of the weapon being considered deadly force, even though the device is designed to be less than lethal.
We have been asking for years, and they cannot provide us a single case where this problem exists. In fact, courts have readily distinguished between deadly force and intermediate force in cases involving law enforcement.
They don't have a single case. They just say that some State attorney somewhere heard from another lawyer they were nervous about it. Mr. Speaker, come on. That is not how we should be legislating in the Congress of the United States.
Congressman Mike Thompson and 18 of our colleagues submitted an amendment to ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement in their official capacity, which is purportedly what this is about. They rejected it.
The Republicans didn't want to hear it because we know that, in fact, there is a commercial purpose that pervades this entire legislation. It is all about opening up a huge, new market to sell tasers, including to millions of people who nobody should want to have them.
I have repeatedly supported and will continue to support legislation to give law enforcement every tool and training they need to keep us safe. I have got to oppose this legislation that could put law enforcement officers and the rest of us in danger.
I stand with the huge number of gun safety groups working to combat gun violence and domestic violence and who strongly oppose and condemn this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing H.R. 2189.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the ranking member that all U.S. States and territories already criminalize misuse of less-than-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws.
Mr. Speaker, 42 States have explicit statutory definitions for less- than-lethal devices. Of those 42 States, 34 already prohibit possession by violent felons and domestic abusers, they impose age restrictions, and impose criminal penalties for misuse. Several States even require permits, licenses, or a background check to purchase or possess these devices.
This is not something that the State legislatures aren't aware of. As a matter of fact, I have said before, I think that there may be some State legislatures that will react to the legislation before us today and possibly come up with other items that States have already put in place that probably will support law enforcement in this area.
I think suggestions that the bill will put these devices in the hands of violent felons or the general public are blown way out of proportion and that H.R. 2189 preserves State regulations on these devices. It does not weaken existing safeguards against misuse.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because it would make us less safe. Police already have access to less-than-lethal weapons like tasers. They don't need a change in the law. That is not an excuse for changing the law.
This bill expands access to dangerous, prohibited individuals by stripping away Federal safeguards. Tasers may not shoot bullets, but they are still dangerous in the wrong hands.
This bill would mean that anyone can buy them without a background check including people convicted of serious violent crimes and domestic abusers with restraining orders against them.
This bill would also eliminate serialization, making these dangerous devices untraceable. H.R. 2189 is a reckless expansion of the gun industry.
Mr. Speaker, because we all care about public safety, I urge my colleagues to stand with me and my colleagues in opposition to this dangerous piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, when I first heard about this bill, I thought it was very interesting that my Republican colleagues had this newfound conviction in helping to prevent law enforcement doing bad things to people and working to de-escalate law enforcement.
I am someone who has been a victim of the abuse of law enforcement, and I just haven't heard my colleagues ever talk about it. I came at this bill skeptically when I looked at it. It turns out the bill itself was pretty much written by a corporation, Axon, that wants to sell a new type of taser.
Let's be clear with everyone. Anyone can buy a taser right now. I would ask everyone watching to go online and look at the fact that anyone can buy it. It can be purchased on Amazon. Anyone can buy a taser right now.
This has to do with new technology that uses gunpowder. This is the reason the ATF decided to regulate this years ago. This doesn't have to do with de-escalating law enforcement, which has tasers in all 50 States. This has to do with selling more weapons and firearms, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the Members we have 22 Democrat cosponsors on this bill. I am sure that those Members are hearing from their own local law enforcement. I am sure they are hearing from their chiefs of police. I am sure they are hearing from their sheriffs.
I am sure that they are hearing from some private security firms that want to be able to access this technology that has been there for some time and has been proven to be a de-escalator in these very tense situations that law enforcement officers find themselves in.
Mr. Speaker, I will say Wisconsin, my State, defines deadly force in its use-of-force policy as: The intentional use of a firearm or other instrument that creates a high probability of death or great bodily harm.
That is what we are trying to overcome, is this definition that does not fit this new technology.
Wisconsin already regulates the use of tasers and stun guns at the State level. You must be over 18 to own a stun gun or a taser, and you must be 21 and possess a valid concealed carry permit to carry in the public.
This is not going to be unchecked. There are absolutely going to be legislatures that will revisit this. It is currently a felony to carry a stun gun or a taser in public without a valid permit. It is illegal to possess stun guns or tasers for those who had prior felony convictions.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of this has already been thought out. It is law enforcement members who think about these items each and every day. It is those in leadership positions who think about these items, and we are responding to that. That is simply what we are doing here.
Once again, I think it is a great bill. I hope that Members support it. It sounds like it is going to be what I would expect to be a solid, bipartisan vote today.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2189.
Let's get honest about what this bill does and doesn't do. It does not require training. It does not set standards. It does not improve accountability, and it does not apply only to law enforcement.
It does carve out a sweeping exemption in our Federal firearms laws and makes it easier for dangerous people to access dangerous weapons with fewer safeguards.
Supporters keep saying that this bill is about helping law enforcement, but if that were true, the bill would mention law enforcement. It doesn't. Law enforcement agencies already have the ability to procure less-lethal tools and are already exempt from many Federal firearm requirements.
Let's talk about who opposes this bill. It is opposed by Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, Newtown Action Alliance, Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund, Jewish Women International, Catholics for Family Peace Education and Research Initiative, Illinois Accountability Initiative, Just Solutions, Legal Momentum, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement, who already uses these weapons in all 50 States. It does not provide any new tools or training that would reduce police shootings or promote the safety of officers or the public.
Instead, it makes dangerous weapons widely available to everyone, including those who should not have them. It allows those weapons to be untraceable, undetectable by equipment, and sold to anyone without a background check.
This bill is especially dangerous for those experiencing domestic violence since this bill provides easy, legal access to weapons that are designed to control and incapacitate their target and can be deadly. Groups that combat domestic violence and gun violence and who support public safety all oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters from various organizations opposing this bill.
The Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act (H.R.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will continue to support law enforcement innovation and the adoption of tools that keep everyone safer, but we must oppose this misguided legislation that does not promote innovation or de-escalation and will only put our law enforcement, those experiencing domestic abuse, and others in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I will spend the time I have remaining responding to a few points made by my colleagues.
First of all, the U.S. States and territories already criminalize the misuse of less-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws, and 34 States also restrict possession by violent felons and domestic abusers.
Let me repeat that. It is illegal for violent felons and domestic abusers to own or misuse less-lethal devices.
Mr. Speaker, our bill does not change that. H.R. 2189 preserves State regulation and, in fact, may invite State legislatures to adjust their statutes to harmonize with Federal law.
Second, the bill will not create ghost guns or other unregulated firearms. The five-part test in this bill would sufficiently protect against deregulation, and any product submitted to ATF for classification will be scrutinized under the ATF's existing classification process.
There is no loophole. This fear-mongering by colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning is nothing more than that.
Finally, police do, in fact, have difficulty obtaining these devices. State and local police departments in States like California, New York, and Texas will not buy the newest taser models due to the increased liability.
This is not some hypothetical. Unless we make this change, State and local police departments will have to settle for weaker, less-accurate taser models due to this misclassification.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the Committee on the Judiciary has expired.
The Chair now recognizes from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), for 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2189, which includes the Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act, led by Congressman David Schweikert.
This legislation shines a bright light on how our laws actually work in the real world, where outdated policy can get in the way of safer outcomes. At the end of the day, this is about encouraging tools that help de-escalate conflict and reduce the chances of serious injury or loss of life.
Across the country, law enforcement officers are asked to resolve dangerous situations every day with the least amount of harm as possible. Less-than-lethal devices, like tasers and similar technologies, exist for that exact purpose.
Right now, some of these tools are treated in the tax code like traditional firearms. That means that they can face extra taxes and regulatory burdens that were never designed with such tools in mind. The result is higher costs, more red tape, and slower adoption of technology that can actually make encounters safer for both officers and civilians.
This bill fixes that mismatch. It makes clear that less-than-lethal weapons, such as tasers, should not be taxed like firearms. It gives clarity to manufacturers; certainty to regulators; and, ultimately, better access to lifesaving tools for law enforcement and the communities that they serve.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Schweikert for his incredible leadership on this bill that keeps our laws on pace with real-world solutions that reduce harm and protect our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2189, the taser bill. I would note that the bill doesn't mention tasers anywhere in the bill, other than in the title.
I am a supporter of innovation. I am a supporter of de-escalation. I am a supporter of tasers. My son is a deputy sheriff. I support giving him and all law enforcement every tool needed to keep them and the people they serve safe, but let me be clear: This bill does nothing to help law enforcement access tasers. The fact is, this bill recklessly and needlessly weakens both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.
Under current law, tasers are not regulated by the National Firearms Act. That is the law that regulates especially dangerous devices like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Under current law, law enforcement in their official capacity are not subject to the background check requirement in the Gun Control Act. That is the law that prevents felons and domestic abusers from buying weapons.
Under the current law, contrary to what the chairman just mentioned, law enforcement is not subject to the excise tax for firearms or for tasers.
Instead of helping law enforcement access tasers, this bill weakens the law that regulates machine guns and opens the door to another flood of unregulated, deadly ghost guns in our community. I don't know one person in law enforcement who wants more untraceable ghost guns on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, it is unclear what barriers law enforcement faces in using long-range tasers. I have never received a complaint from law enforcement in my district, nor have I seen any reports suggesting that this is a problem. Long-range tasers are already used by law enforcement--and listen to this--in all 50 States, and in all 50 States, law enforcement pays zero excise taxes on these devices. It is important to know that long-range tasers can already be legally purchased by civilians. All they need to do is pass a background check.
I support tasers. I support law enforcement. This bill does not mention tasers once, and law enforcement is only mentioned in the title. I don't know what they are trying to do, but it looks to me like this might just be the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever had a piece of legislation--we all go through this--where you have your friends on the opposite side who say things, and you think, wow, I can't find that in this piece of legislation. I guess we are all sometimes in the pandering business.
About a year ago, in my community, we had a woman who came running out of her house holding a knife. She was having some sort of horrible mental health issue, and she was charging a police officer with a knife. Before this type of technology, she would have lost her life because a traditional firearm would have been used. They used a nonlethal.
The reason it doesn't say ``taser'' in the language is because who knows what next year's innovation is going to be. That is the whole point: Can you have a society where, through the use of technology, people don't die?
Why do the bill? Why do this portion of the bill for those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means? Let's go back about 100 years ago. On excise tax, you have 11 percent on the cartridge, and you have 10 percent on the unit itself. You collect the excise tax. Then you have to go back to the tax-exempt government agency, have them fill out their paperwork, submit it over, and then turn back to refund it. We are just trying to clean up the bureaucracies that are 100 years out of date.
It is not that hard. Make up your mind. Do you want broader adoption of nonlethal technology so our brothers and sisters don't die?
Think of some of the crappy things that have happened in our society over the last 10, 20 years because of the discharge of a firearm in law enforcement. It does not need to be that way.
This is actually the second or third rewrite of this bill as we try to make the anti-firearm groups happy. It turns out we would meet their requests, and then they would change their standard. The problem or the disagreement kept changing.
I don't know what the motivation is for playing games, but we bring this to the floor with honest hearts. We want our brothers and sisters not to die in this moment of violence. I would think there would be this almost giddy optimism that technology is bringing us here. Instead, it continues to be the moving excuse of why to oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters.
H.R. 4242: Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act
H.R. 2189 establishes a technical fix establishing a Less-Lethal
Mr. Speaker, we are barely 2 months into this new year, and yet we have already had 35 mass shootings, devastating communities across the country.
If only two or three people are killed, it hardly makes national news anymore. We can be sure after every major incident that Republicans will offer their thoughts and prayers and then proceed to obstruct anyone who wants to do anything to increase gun safety.
Instead of addressing the serious tragedy, the illness that plagues our country with gun violence, Republicans today propose a new loophole, a dangerous loophole for so-called less-than-lethal devices. Once they are no longer considered firearms under the Federal definition, protective rules go away. That means no background checks. That means no serial number on the equipment so that the police can trace it if a criminal is using it.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Arizona, but using his example of a woman coming at a police officer with a knife, this bill does nothing for the police officer. He can get full access to less- than-lethal weapons now, but the woman, if she had a mental health problem and was barred from a firearm, she could now go buy one of these less-than-lethal devices.
In fact, it is not just one woman in Arizona. There are 5 million convicted felons in this country. There are 7 million people with mental health conditions. They are all barred from getting a firearm, and this dangerous loophole is designed to ensure that they now will see a giant sign saying, ``Come get your weapon,'' because they no longer will be prohibited from getting one of these weapons, while the police officers, the law enforcement officers across this country, get no benefit. In fact, their job is made more difficult because these weapons can no longer be traced when used by one of these convicted felons who chooses to engage in other criminal activity.
These less-than-lethal devices, as they have been labeled, include tasers. There is one story after another, horrible stories, with details of criminals who have used tasers as they raped and abused their victims.
Beanbag rounds, we had those used in Austin against a number of teenagers. They may be called less than lethal,
With homemade alterations, which can occur with these less-than- lethal weapons, they can become more rapid-fire. They can become much more dangerous and still untraceable weapons.
There are so many things that we could be doing in this Congress concerning gun safety. Mr. Thompson has requested a universal background check--not to deny anyone, but to ensure that someone with a mental health condition or some other condition, someone you do not want getting a gun, to ensure safety through that background check. That has been widely supported by law enforcement.
There is a concern about the weapons of war that are brought onto our streets and kill multiple people. There are a number of reasonable measures that have been advocated by one group after another across this country to make our streets safer and to have parents, when they send their children off to school, know they will come home and won't have to spend all their time fearing the kind of violence that we saw in Uvalde, Texas, that led to the deaths of so many little children.
These are things that Congress could be working on right now. This loophole that will allow more people who should not have a gun because of their criminal history or their mental health condition will allow them to get that weapon. Real public safety means fewer weapons on our streets, not more loopholes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Ms. Tenney. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is about time that we support the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De- Escalate Act. This crucial legislation ensures that law enforcement officers have access to the best, less-than-lethal technologies for de- escalation.
Under current law, certain new less-than-lethal technologies are included under the National Firearms Act, NFA, a law designed to regulate firearms. However, due to the definition of firearms under the NFA, this includes less-than-lethal devices such as the new TASER 10. This bill will modernize the NFA to include the less-than-lethal category to ensure that devices like the TASER 10, that are not designated to be lethal, are not included under the NFA's taxes and regulations design for firearms for use by municipalities, not individuals.
I am honored to be a cosponsor of this bill along with, I think, at least 22 commonsense Democrats, and I strongly supported its passage through the House Ways and Means committee.
However, I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to support this commonsense bill. Instead, they want to politicize and talk about completely unrelated matters.
While some on the other side resort to fear-mongering, House Republicans and, as I said 22, I believe, commonsense Democrats, are committed to ensuring law enforcement has the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe.
Every major police organization is supporting the passage of this legislation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. This is a pro-police, pro-community, and lifesaving piece of legislation.
I urge the Senate to vote on this bill expediently. I thank Representative Fitzgerald, Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, and, of course, Chairman Smith for bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, my good friend from New York was talking about how important this is for law enforcement to have access to these types of tasers. As I said in my opening remarks, all 50 States already have access to these tasers.
As a matter of fact, in New York, the gentlewoman who just spoke talked about their need to have them. The New York Police Department uses these tasers and the Syracuse Police Department uses these tasers. As a matter of fact, their use is funded by a State grant. The Ramapo Police Department uses these tasers.
In Arizona, where my good friend Mr. Schweikert is from, the Phoenix Police Department uses these tasers. The Mesa Police Department uses these tasers. The Scottsdale Police Department uses these tasers.
This is not about providing access for law enforcement to use these tasers. They are already used in all 50 States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Mr. Speaker, for the past year, Republicans have done nothing to address rising grocery prices, rising energy prices, and rising healthcare prices. What is the one thing they are willing to do? Making tasers more accessible to dangerous people. It is unbelievable.
On January 21, 2023, my hometown of Monterey Park, California, suffered a mass shooting that killed 11 of our neighbors. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in Los Angeles County's history.
Monterey Park, and every community across this country, deserves to be safe from violence, whether from guns, tasers, or anything else, but Republicans are working to make our communities less safe by handing over access of weapons to individuals we know should not have them and making them far harder for law enforcement to track.
We should be focused on keeping our communities safe, not voting to flood our streets with even more weapons.
Mr. Speaker, you absolutely cannot make this stuff up that you are hearing from the other side of the aisle. When they talk about the affordability crisis, let's talk about the affordability crisis.
Gas prices are the lowest they have been in 5 years. Inflation is the lowest it has been in 4 years. Just in the first year of President Trump, wages grew more than all 4 years under Joe Biden. We are in an inflation crisis that President Trump inherited because of the spending spree, the $10 trillion spending spree, that the Democrats did when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. Speaker. I have a speech written for this today. I am going to speak from the heart.
As one of just a few people that have represented their constituents in Congress, I was one of the few that wore the uniform. I was one of the few that was shot while off-duty. I was one of the few that had a gun malfunction when it was pointed at my head. I was one of the few that ran into the fire. I was one of the few that was on our tackle response team.
When they talk about tasers, it is a tool that we can use in law enforcement to save lives, not only the officer, not only the subject or the suspect, but bystanders.
For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try to defend the philosophy that we don't need those or this piece of legislation that involves the tax code isn't legit, it is just atrocious.
Here is a list of people that support it: The African American Mayors Association. The Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs of America, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and so many others.
You can ask every law enforcement officer on the streets of America whether they want this to move forward and pass and become law. The answer is yes because the technology continues to grow and grow.
When I first started in law enforcement, we had one shot at the taser. When we would cross draw, flip the switch up, bring it up, taser, taser, taser. We only had one. Later on in my career, we had two options. This gives us, in some cases, 10 options to subdue a subject that is violent and is going to either harm the officer, bystanders, or, more importantly, themselves.
Cross draw, flip up, taser, taser, taser.
This is a good bill, and my colleagues on the other sides of the aisle know it
We need to protect law enforcement. We are the ones who call them when we are in harm. They come to the fight. They will be there when we call 911.
Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't support something that defends the cops and helps them with another tool on their tool belt to make sure they are safe, the subject is safe, and any bystanders are safe. It is unconscionable.
This is a great bill. I wholeheartedly support it, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will too.
Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank Mr. Stauber for his time in public safety. I thank him for being a cop. We all owe a deep gratitude to those in uniform who keep us safe.
As I mentioned when I first made my opening statement, my son is a cop. I appreciate him, and I appreciate all his colleagues.
However, it is disingenuous to stand on this floor and say that this bill is needed so cops can have access to this particular type of taser technology.
Mr. Stauber is from Minnesota. I just want to point out that Minnesota uses this. The Minnetonka Police Department uses this technology. The Minneapolis Police Department uses these tasers. The St. Charles Police Department uses these tasers. The Hastings Police Department uses these tasers. The Brooklyn Park Police Department uses these tasers.
This is not about police not having access to this taser technology. They have it, and they can use it. It is not about that. Please focus on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, 90 seconds is the shortest I have ever spoken.
Mr. Speaker, if someone is actually listening to our discussion, the Democrats have made it clear: Hey, lots of law enforcement have this product.
Wonderful. We are trying to explain that this is a segment of the tax code we are trying to make easier and more efficient. Once again, just read the bill. It is remarkably simple.
Mr. Speaker, you have an excise tax. You have to go through all these steps to collect it then to refund it.
So my friend from California--he is a good guy. We have done a number of bills together over the years--made my argument. This is actually in wide distribution across the country, and there is another generation of technology, hopefully, coming and another one coming.
It is more than just the taser in the hand. It may be the thing on the wall that protects my synagogue or my school or those things. There is a revolution of nonlethal coming so that people don't have to die.
I thank the gentleman for explaining that it is in wide distribution. Now let's deal with the things in the tax code that add bureaucracy and costs. If we both support the fact that these should be in the hands of people protecting our public, then let's remove some of the bureaucracy that makes it more expensive.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for making my point.
If it is about the tax code, then let's address that. That is not what this bill does. This opens a huge loophole that will allow people who are a danger to themselves and others to have access to devices that none of us believe that they should have access to.
If it was all about what Mr. Schweikert said, then why didn't the majority take my amendment that I filed that would have taken the ghost gun loophole issue off the table?
If it is about the tax code, then let's deal with the tax code. However, as Mr. Doggett made the argument about domestic abusers, these are people who perpetrate the most heinous of crimes. That is why when this House and Senate passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we closed the boyfriend loophole to ensure that abusive boyfriends were blocked from accessing firearms, the same way we block abusive husbands from getting their hands on weapons.
The Gun Control Act is the Federal statute that requires background checks which block these abusers from getting their hands on firearms. This bill weakens the Gun Control Act and would allow convicted domestic abusers to purchase long-range tasers and ghost guns. That is not what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that they want to do.
So why don't we deal with the tax issue? We can do it. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is right here. That is an easy one for us to fix. But don't create a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of ghost guns through.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, this bill does not do what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that it does. They say that police need this bill in order to have access to and use this new taser, this new innovation in tasers. As I have pointed out a number of times, everyone who has spoken, in their home State they use these tasers. The police departments have access to these, and they use them.
As a matter of fact, all 50 States use these tasers today. I have a list of all those.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that list of States.
Also, on the issue of domestic abusers, the idea that this body would make it easier for domestic abusers to get new technology in tasers is just beyond explanation. We should be extremely worried about these people getting this type of technology.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a February 9, 2026, to House leadership.
Mr. Speaker, for folks who make the argument that people are afraid, they want to have the newest taser technology to keep themselves safe in the civilian space, I understand that. They are not precluded from being able to purchase and have this new technology in tasers. They just have to get a background check to make sure they aren't domestic abusers and to make sure they are not prohibited individuals who couldn't otherwise get firearms.
This bill does a lot more than the proponents are suggesting that it does. If, in fact, they want to deal with the issues that they stood on this floor today and talked about, they are all good issues, everybody will agree with that, let's do it. Let's draw the bill to deal with those issues. We could have done that had the majority accepted my bill that would have closed the ghost gun loophole, but they chose not to.
If they really want to make this bill do what they are claiming, then let's write a bill that does that. This bill doesn't do it. This puts American communities at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, based on the comments that we have been hearing from the other side, it is proof that they didn't take the time to read the seven-page bill that we are debating on the floor. That is because the accusations and the comments you have heard, Mr. Speaker, are clearly not identifiable of the legislation that is being debated.
This bill comes down to basic common sense. Our tax code should not put unnecessary barriers in front of technologies designed to reduce harm.
Representative Schweikert's legislation helps align our tax policy with our public safety goals. It supports innovation, it encourages less lethal means of law enforcement, and removes an outdated burden that never made much sense to begin with.
When Congress has the chance to make a straightforward fix that can contribute to safer communities and smarter policy, we should take it.
I commend Congressman Schweikert for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I congratulate the 22 brave Democrats who believe in less lethal force by sponsoring this legislation. I just wish there was more of that party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill this week to designate the Mahaffey Post Office in Mahaffey, Pennsylvania, as the Robert Allen Bishop, Sr. Post Office.
Bob was a Marine Corps veteran, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, and an outstanding member of the community. Born in 1936, Bob graduated from Punxsutawney Area High School in 1954. At age 22, he enlisted in the Marine Corps and completed an overseas tour in Japan and obtained the rank of corporal.
Following his military service, Bob returned to Pennsylvania and opened the Lightner and Bishop General Store with his wife, Jean. Today, the building that housed the general store is home to the Mahaffey Post Office.
Bob was a letter carrier for 36 years and received the Million Mile Award, which recognizes workers who drive over 1 million miles. He also served with the Mahaffey Volunteer Fire Department as an EMT.
Bob passed away on June 15, 2023.
Mr. Speaker, Bob dedicated his life to service, to his country and his community, and I look forward to renaming the Mahaffey Post Office in his honor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Tet, the Vietnamese lunar new year.
The lunar new year is so much more than a date on the calendar. It is an opportunity for the Asian-American communities in California and across America to reflect on our past and to open our hearts to the promise of the future.
I grew up as a child of Vietnamese refugees. My family gave up everything to rebuild their lives in America after fleeing communist oppression. They worked tirelessly to achieve the freedom and prosperity that the American Dream offers us. I couldn't be prouder to honor my heritage from the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my warmest wishes to everyone in our community for a joyful and prosperous Year of the Horse.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my outgoing communications director, Mr. Matt Reed.
Matt has been on my staff for 2\1/2\ years. During that time, he has been a crucial member of my team.
Matt has tremendous work ethic, an infectious sense of humor, and is a friend to everyone in the office. From late hours in the D.C. office to road trips throughout central Washington, Matt has been my megaphone across three Congresses, and we have enjoyed every minute of it.
As Matt departs from the House for, I am sorry to say, the upper Chamber, I am confident that he will succeed in his new role and that he will have a bright future ahead of him.
Mr. Speaker, on January 1, Republicans in Congress allowed the Affordable Care Act credits to expire.
Instead of celebrating a new year, millions of Americans confronted healthcare premiums skyrocketing overnight. Many had to make an impossible choice. Just look at my home State of Pennsylvania, where 85,000 people who receive their health insurance through Pennie, our health insurance marketplace, were forced to drop coverage.
That is one in five Pennsylvanians, and it is not surprising who is bearing the brunt of this crisis: older Pennsylvanians and rural communities, some of the most vulnerable among us; 85,000 people who can't access preventative screenings for cancer or visit a pediatrician when their child is sick; and people who may or will delay lifesaving care because they simply cannot afford it.
These tax credits save lives. That is why the House voted last month to extend them for 3 years. It was overwhelmingly supported. It was bipartisan. It is humane.
My message to my Senate colleagues is this: Bring this bill to the floor today. We cannot waste another moment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my good friend and a dedicated public servant, Denis Troy, who passed away at the age of 78 from a courageous battle with cancer.
A proud Bronx native and Manhattan College alumnus, Denis and his wife, Bea, lived in Pearl River for over 34 years, raising their four children and constantly giving back to their community.
Denis was one of those people who did not just serve his community. He lived for it. From his years on the Orangetown Board and in the county legislature, to the countless nights and weekends he gave to youth sports; veterans; and local organizations, including his beloved AOH Division III, Denis showed us what real public service looked like by always putting his community first.
Beyond the titles and accomplishments, Denis was simply a good man. He was generous with his time, steady in his values, and always supportive and encouraging, especially to those of us who were lucky enough to call him a friend. Orangetown and Pearl River are better places because of Denis, and his legacy will never be forgotten.
My heartfelt condolences go out to his family and all who had the pleasure of knowing him. I thank Denis for his many years of mentorship and friendship.
Mr. Speaker, Frank Scott, a ninth- generation farmer, was proudly honored as our State's Young Farmer of the Year. His family takes great pride in producing tobacco, sweet potatoes, cotton, soybeans, and sweet onions.
Together with his dedicated wife, Rebecca, and two children, Elijah and Lizzie, Frank tirelessly manages their family farm, exemplifying resilience and unwavering dedication.
Recently, Frank shared with me the enormous weight on his shoulders of holding on to his family's farm and one day turning it over to his children, our next generation.
I had the pleasure of speaking with his lively son, Elijah. He can hardly wait to assist his dad on the farm, and I am prayerful that, one day, I am able to call him a 10th-generation farmer.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Frank and his entire family on this well- deserved recognition. Their story not only uplifts their family, but also is an inspiration for all people across America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for a very important reason.
Today is my mom's birthday, and I want to wish my mom a happy 80th birthday. Her name is Carolyn, but if you are in the Ninth District, you probably know her as Granny.
Let me tell you a little bit about Granny. She is tougher than any whip count, and she is more disciplined than running the House floor. I will tell you that is saying something up here.
Let me tell you what you really need to know about my mom. She is the life of every party at 80 years young, and she lives every day to its fullest. She taught me how to work hard, to listen more than I should speak, to never ever back down, and to believe in myself. She is the very reason that, today, I am standing where I am standing.
She is the heart of our family, a role model for our grandkids, and the woman who reminds me every single day of why I came up here: to fight for the people of my district, the Ninth District.
Mr. Speaker, I wish my mom a happy birthday. I love her more than words can say, and I can't wait to get home and celebrate with her.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, serving communities in Sacramento and Placer Counties.
On December 1, 2000, the American River Fire District and the Sacramento County Fire Protection District reorganized to form what we now know as Metro Fire, uniting 16 fire agencies into one force dedicated to protecting our communities.
Today, Metro Fire serves more than 720,000 people across 359 square miles. With 41 fire stations and more than 700 dedicated members, they stand ready around the clock to respond to fires, rescues, medical emergencies, and more to save lives and protect property.
Their mission says it best: ``professional and compassionate protection,
That teamwork and pride show up in every setting. Last year, Station 26 took first place in the inaugural HERO Act Chili Cookoff that my office hosted at the California State Fair. I was proud to visit the station to present ribbons to Captain Adam Huckaby and Firefighter Taylor Edwards.
As we celebrate this milestone, we also have a responsibility to support the men and women who support all of us, especially when it comes to their mental health. That is why I am continuing to push for passage of my bipartisan HERO Act to extend access to mental health and support for our brave first responders.
Mr. Speaker, Charlottesville Hyperbarics has become a frontline in the fight for veterans suffering from the invisible wounds of war.
They recently launched the Hyperbaric Wellness Foundation and have partnered with the HOW Foundation to provide hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans battling PTSD or other traumatic brain injury.
Additionally, generous grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs have allowed them to successfully treat over 59 veterans so far this year.
As a Navy SEAL veteran, I have friends who have battled wounds that go deeper than emotion. Advanced imaging now confirms that PTSD is a neurological brain injury. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, using pure oxygen under pressure, heals these injuries directly and restores brain health.
When I visited the clinic last May, I saw the healing in action. Two of the staff members leading the veterans program are veterans who suffer from PTSD. They went through the program themselves. HBOT changed their lives so completely that they have now dedicated themselves to helping others do the same.
We are still losing over 20 veterans a day to suicide, despite exhaustive and costly efforts to stop it. That is not just a tragedy. It is a call to action.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is saving lives and helping veterans rejoin their families, their communities, and the workforce. With sufficient funding and support, we can expand this model across Virginia and across our country. Our veterans deserve a program that can help them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to share an excerpt of a letter from a child who was detained at the Dilley ICE facility: ``My name is Ariana . . . I am 14 years old, and I am from Honduras. I've been detained for 45 days. Since I got to this center, all you will feel is sadness and mostly depression. I've been in this country for almost 7 years, and in those 7 years, my mom and I found a home and made a bigger family. I have never been separated from my siblings, and it's honestly sad because they are little, and they need their mom and sister.''
She goes on to say: ``I haven't been getting any school time. There are various viruses. People are always sick. Serious situations happen, and the officers can't take them seriously enough. There are no consequences. They don't care.''
Mr. Speaker, children are being traumatized by what this administration is doing to them. We must ask ourselves: Is this right? Is this moral? Is this the Nation we want to be?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Grace Baptist Church and Pastor Matt Miller for 50 years of Gospel service in Colorado's Fifth Congressional District.
Founded by Dr. Dean Miller's family in 1976 as Cornerstone Baptist Church, for 50 years this congregation has ministered the hope of the Gospel.
They have provided Christian education, and they have equipped Christians for ministry. They have also trained the next generation of Bible preachers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Pastor Miller and all who have been there as congregants. Well done to all of the faithful servants at Grace Baptist Church.
Mr. Speaker, in the centennial year of Black History Month, I rise today as just one voice in the continuous and collective effort to celebrate the incomparable Congresswoman Shirley Anita Chisholm to the degree that she deserves.
For her legacy of justice and equality in Brooklyn, New York, and America, for the possibilities her very being opened to millions of Black women and girls, for never failing to live her American Dream out loud, I am proud to introduce my resolution that would result in a tribute worthy of her character and accomplishments: the permanent placement of her statue in the United States Capitol.
In this time of unprecedented attacks on the true story of our country, honoring Shirley Chisholm with a statue in the Halls of Congress would signal to the American people that this body is still committed to recognizing the defining figures of our history. We must show future generations that the progress of today did not appear by accident.
It took unrelenting passion, integrity, and dedication. It took leaders like Congresswoman Chisholm, who from her first day to the last remained unbought and unbossed.
I believe we have a moral mandate and a real opportunity here not just to examine racial inequalities that permeate every sector and segment of our society but the responsibility to reflect on how we got here, right here in these Halls.
Looking toward the faces in this room with me now, I can say with certainty that Shirley Chisholm's legacy is reflected in myself and the many colleagues of today.
Mr. Speaker, as tax filing season begins, important improvements to our tax code are already making a real difference for older Americans. For too long seniors were treated unfairly, Mr. Speaker, taxed on their Social Security benefits and left struggling to cover rising costs.
That is finally starting to change. This year, a new $6,000 tax exemption for taxpayers age 65 and older takes effect.
Last week, I visited a tax preparation site in Pasco County, Florida, and my constituents confirmed that this provision is helping them.
Enacted as part of the Working Families Tax Cut Act, this deduction applies through 2028 and is available whether seniors take the standard deduction or itemize. It will benefit millions of Americans on fixed incomes, providing meaningful relief as costs for housing, healthcare, prescriptions, and groceries continue to rise.
But our work is not done, Mr. Speaker. To many seniors, they still see their Social Security benefits taxed. That is why I support legislation to fully exempt Social Security income from Federal taxation.
Tax policy should reward a lifetime of hard work, Mr. Speaker, not penalize retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Black History Month to honor a giant in the civil rights movement, Ella Baker.
She grew up in North Carolina and studied at Shaw University, an outstanding and historic HBCU in Raleigh.
After attending Shaw, she moved to New York City and fought for economic justice for Black Americans.
She went on to work with Dr. King to organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Following nationwide sit-ins led by Black college students, Ms. Baker was an instrumental figure in forming the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee at Shaw University at a conference in 1960.
From fighting for voting rights for Black Americans to mentoring the next generation of civil rights leaders, Ella Baker paved the way for future generations.
North Carolina and our country are better because of Ella Baker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Matt Hanley on his well-deserved recognition as one of Georgia Trend Magazine's 100 Most Influential Georgians for 2026.
In just under a year since assuming the role of president and CEO of Northeast Georgia Health System, Dr. Hanley has demonstrated exceptional vision and a relentless pursuit of excellence.
Dr. Hanley's seamless transition to leadership continues Northeast Georgia Health System's remarkable growth, including five hospitals, advanced medical programs, and an economic impact exceeding $7.5 billion.
Named alongside leading business and academic figures like Delta Airlines Ed Bastian and University of Georgia President Jerry Morehead, Dr. Hanley is in great company.
He credits all recognition to the dedicated staff and workforce at Northeast Georgia Health System for their shared commitment to keeping communities healthy, expanding access to care, and meeting everyday needs.
Dr. Hanley has proven his leadership from the emergency room to the board room and now among Georgia's most influential voices.
Through his service, Dr. Hanley is helping build a healthier, stronger Georgia for all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Ohio's own Laila Edwards. Laila is a native of Cleveland Heights and currently represents the United States in the Winter Olympics, my favorite.
Laila became the first Black woman to play for the United States in the Olympic women's ice hockey at this year's Milano Cortina Games. At 22, she didn't just make the roster, she contributed, recording her first Olympic point in a 5-1 win over Czechia.
We have been saying it for years. Ohioans are awesome, and Laila truly proves it. She grew up skating on our lakes and ponds, working hard and believing in herself. She kept going even when she was the only girl on the ice, even when few people who looked like her had been given that chance.
During Black History Month, her story reminds us that progress doesn't happen by accident. It happens because purposeful people show up, work hard, and refuse to be told they don't belong.
I congratulate Laila Edwards. Laila has made northwest Ohio and all of Ohio extremely proud. I am proud of our country. Go Laila. Go team U.S.A.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my parents, Albert and Sarah Stutzman.
They are celebrating their 50th anniversary this Saturday, one day after Valentine's Day. I just want to acknowledge them in all that they have done for me and for my siblings.
They have really been an example of what hard work and what faith can do in a great country like America.
My dad dropped out of high school. They were married when they were very young, and they worked tremendously hard. They went through a lot of challenges in their own lives as they worked to build a better future for not only themselves but for my siblings and myself and others.
They were foster parents. They went on mission trips. They helped people in the community. They would take people into our home whenever they needed help. They were always willing to help those who were in need. They were always active in church. They were active in our schools.
I just can't say enough about how proud I am of my parents, Albert and Sarah. I just want to wish them a happy anniversary this weekend.
I love you, and I am looking forward to years ahead together.
Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month, when we take special note of the historic achievements of African Americans who have helped shape today's America. Black history is American history and for decades has been ignored by racism. Now, as we identify and remember both those famous and some unfamiliar names from decades past, there is today a movement to whitewash history and to minimize those names.
However, there are efforts to ensure we never forget the role played by our Black sisters and brothers. Bronx Councilman Kevin Riley is sponsoring one such effort, the fifth annual Black History Month Living Legends Luncheon honoring our neighbors on Wednesday, February 25, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at The Mall at Bay Plaza food court.
It will highlight Black leaders from Co-op City, Edenwald, Wakefield, and other parts of the north Bronx who have helped the community and thereby made history.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Councilman Riley for making Black history come alive for today's generations in the Bronx.
Mr. Speaker, war criminal Putin should apologize for his January 29 phone call pledge to President Donald Trump to avoid destroying utilities in Ukraine, while Putin accelerates attacks to freeze Ukrainians as Stalin starved Ukrainians.
Putin should apologize to courageous First Lady Melania Trump for keeping kidnapped Ukrainian children to ``Putinize'' them, as Hitler kidnapped Polish children to Germany.
Putin should apologize to Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner for endless meetings in Moscow, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Miami, Paris, Vienna, and New York as Putin restocks Iranian drones, Chinese Communist Party missiles, and North Korean troops.
The war continues as dictators with rule of gun invade democracies with rule of law: February 24, 2022, into Ukraine and October 7, 2023, into Israel.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies and insulting Trump and mocking Trump with murderous attacks this week in Ukraine, freezing civilians with no electricity, no heat, and no water.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and service of Minnesota State House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, whom we lost to an unspeakable act of political violence last year.
The Minnesota House of Representatives will convene next week for the first time in more than 20 years without Melissa's presence. She was the single longest serving female speaker in Minnesota State history.
She always led with a calm and steady demeanor, emphasizing the importance of conversation and listening to one another. She rejected the idea that our political differences should prevent us from working together, and she always encouraged us to focus on our shared desire to make our State and our country a better place for the next generation.
Melissa was a giant among Minnesota lawmakers and modeled leadership qualities that we all should emulate.
She recognized that true leaders do not bully and coerce. They listen and sacrifice, and they compromise while remaining true to their convictions. They lead with humility above all else.
I think of her mentorship and her example every day and call on my colleagues to honor her legacy by prioritizing civility and humility in our service and always striving to make our communities just a little bit better for someone else.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and honor Robert Skankey and Hunter Bennett who tragically lost their lives in a helicopter crash last Wednesday.
After responding to a domestic violence call in Flagstaff, law enforcement officers engaged in a nearly 2-hour gunfight with a dangerous criminal. During the pursuit, the Arizona Department of Public Safety provided air support with a Ranger 56 helicopter crew.
Shortly after the suspect was apprehended, the helicopter crashed, taking the lives of marine veteran Robert Skankey and trooper paramedic Hunter Bennett.
On behalf of all Arizonans, we mourn the loss of these two heroes who dedicated their lives to public service. Words cannot fully express our gratitude for their selflessness, courage, and commitment to keeping our communities safe.
May the Lord bless their families, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time and grant them everlasting peace.
Mr. Speaker, each month I recognize a St. Louis all-star, someone who represents the very best of our city. During Black History Month, I have been highlighting Black leaders who helped shape St. Louis and expand opportunity for everyone.
However, this week is bigger than one name. That is because long before the great Bill Clay was elected to Congress, Black Missourians were fighting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation just to cast a ballot. They were told their voices didn't matter. They organized anyway.
Countless leaders pushed from the streets, as well as leaders like our beloved Frankie Muse Freeman, who fought in the courts.
When I see new efforts to make voting more restrictive, more complicated, and more conditional, I am reminded why their work matters. Black History Month isn't just about remembrance. It is about vigilance.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here because they fought to open the door, and I won't let anyone quietly close it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a son of Oakland, California, my constituent, Ryan Coogler, whose film ``Sinners'' has earned 16 Academy Award nominations, the most of any film in Oscar history.
Ryan Coogler was born in Oakland, California, raised in Richmond, and educated at Saint Mary's in Berkeley.
He first came to national attention by putting a human face on the murder of Oscar Grant. He is the youngest director to helm a billion- dollar film. Now, with ``Sinners,'' he has given the world the work of prophetic cinema.
``Sinners'' deploys the imagery of Southern Gothic horror to excavate the truths this Republic has long preferred to bury.
Vampirism became a metaphor in the film to uplift systems that fed on Black life, body, and spirit since the founding of this country.
It is the full humanity that he lifts up in this movie, the humanity of Black folks building community and clamoring and claiming joy under apartheid conditions.
Alongside Ryan Coogler, our district celebrates Oaklanders Delroy Lindo and Raphael Saadiq for their nominations. They are three Oakland artists, and one extraordinary film.
Mr. Speaker, we are so very proud of Ryan Coogler.
Mr. Speaker, I have said for months that no one is safe in Trump's America. From New Jersey to Minnesota, mothers, fathers, children--no one is safe. We have seen people like Greg Bovino and his masked paramilitaries come into our communities and cause an immense amount of harm. We have seen 5-year-olds come home from school only to be detained and then sent to Dilley, Texas, then be returned and see the administration try to end their asylum claim. This is what people are experiencing across the country. We need everyone to speak out against it, not just in Minnesota, not just in New Jersey, and not just Democrats but Republicans as well. This is not who we are as a country, and we cannot be silent in this moment.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will assure the Chair that I will not be speaking for 60 minutes. I will be kind of amazed if I get to 25.
We now go on a work period back in the district for a little over a week. I think there are certain topics that haven't been talked about enough in this Chamber, and hopefully they will be talked about a little bit more when we return.
The first anecdote, which is symptomatic--it is huge problems for America, I would argue the greatest immediate concern for America--is shown by an incident that happened in Minneapolis.
A little while ago, an ICE agent doing his job had his finger bitten off by one of these radical protesters who seem to have descended in Minneapolis. What happened afterwards, though, as horrific as that is, was even worse.
First of all, you would think if you bit off somebody's finger, you would be in a lot of trouble with the law. Minneapolis is in some place called Hennepin County, and you would have felt the Hennepin County law enforcement, the district attorney, would have dealt very seriously with the person who bit off the finger of an ICE agent.
In fact, Minneapolis--which is kind of like, I guess, New York West or Los Angeles East, they did not see anything worth prosecuting when you bite off the finger of an ICE agent.
Then we went to the Federal law enforcement, and they convened a grand jury to indict the person who bit off the finger of an ICE agent, which you think would be relatively automatic. Nobody argued that this person didn't bite off the finger of an ICE agent, which by the way will not be able to be sewn back on.
Instead, when they brought it before a grand jury, which was somewhere between 16 and 22 people, they would not indict. They were, in fact, hostile to the ICE agent and wondered what he was doing in Minnesota.
The person who bit off the finger of an ICE agent will not suffer any penalty at all that we can determine.
Now, this is not only an incredible injustice to the ICE agent who lost his finger, it is a danger sign for America. Every country has immigration laws. When I talk to people in my district, even people who think we ought to let more people in this country, they don't think we should have no immigration laws. Nevertheless, this is where we stand.
As I repeated before, right now we naturalize about 800,000 people every year in this country. 800,000 people are sworn in as new citizens if you take a 4-year rolling average.
That is higher than any time in our country. It is about six times what we were letting in when I was a child. We right now are in a position in which about one out of six people in America is foreign born, which is the highest it has been for at least the last 130 years.
We have nothing to apologize for. We are not being xenophobic. We are not saying we are going to let nobody in this country, but obviously we have to have some restrictions or we would wind up with tens of millions more people in the country.
However, despite our generosity in letting more people here, we have significant areas of the country governed by elected people who will do all they can to wage war on the rest of us and not enforce our immigration laws.
This is the most egregious example of the problem. Can you imagine a grand jury whose attitude is we don't care if an ICE agent gets their finger bitten off? That is what we have in Minnesota.
Like I said, while it is outrageous in its own right for this individual, it is a danger sign for the future of America when you have significant areas of the United States which are actively working to have no immigration laws at all.
This happened in Minnesota. I think it could have happened in Washington State. It could have happened in California. It could have happened in New York. We have to find a way to get Americans back on the straight and narrow as far as respecting our law enforcement.
One of the reasons why they lost control in Minneapolis in the first place is that local law enforcement would not assist ICE.
I have talked to sheriffs in my own district, and whenever any Federal agency is engaged in an action in any county that they are aware of, the local law enforcement is prepared to assist them.
That is, if the FBI is around, if ICE is around, if the Secret Service is around, if Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are around, the local sheriffs always say: What can we do to help you? Maybe it is to secure a perimeter, maybe it is to transport somebody who has broken the law, but maybe it is just to have a squad car visible to let local people know that some serious law enforcement work is going on.
Whatever it is, the sheriffs of the State of Wisconsin are always there. It is automatic that they assist their brothers in law enforcement. The sheriffs I talked to couldn't even think of an example in which local law enforcement complained privately about having to help the Feds, but in Minnesota--and it is not surprising it happened in Minnesota and not in Missouri and not Indiana--at the request of elected officials, a mayor and a Governor, local law enforcement had to stand down and watch as riots took place, property damage, and even more injury to the Federal employees.
This place has to find a way to persuade our citizens that we are a great country and our laws have to be enforced. As long as we keep heading down this path of not enforcing the laws or allowing States to be so degenerate that they do not want to help Federal law enforcement, it will ultimately be the end of the country.
I want to talk about another area of which I will say in this case what other countries are doing affects the United States, and will also head us toward being the type of country we wouldn't want to live in.
That is with regard to a committee hearing we had this week on the First Amendment and how it affects internet platforms, but it is really a greater topic than just that.
This week, we had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in which we talked about restrictions on free speech in Europe. Usually, when I think of Europe, I think of Europe as being kind of like the United States, right? You take an airline to London or Paris or Rome, and you expect the same freedoms and prosperity you do in the United States.
In this hearing, we heard of a woman who is a member of the Finnish Parliament. She was charged with a crime and has had to go through a great deal of legal work to not be penalized yet because she quoted the Bible in Finland.
The Finnish Government had apparently decided, particularly what I guess this body would call a controversial part of Romans, that because she quoted it, she should be penalized for that.
We also heard from an Irish comedian who told jokes about transgenderism in Great Britain, and he was arrested. He has since fled to the United States, to a country in which you can still tell jokes about transgenderism so far. You can still tell jokes about illegal immigration and not go to jail.
Now, we were supposed to care about this, and we do care about it because it affects our platforms. Insofar as the European governments put restrictions on X or put restrictions on Instagram, it affects Americans, as well, and that is true. What I thought was even more significant is, this is what is happening in Europe.
In Europe, they have lost the right to free speech, which is just shocking to me. Frequently, bad things that happen in this country happen in Europe first. You have to remember that under the last administration, under the Biden administration, they had proposed a Disinformation Governance Board.
Think about that. That is something out of Orwell. Joe Biden, who was the President of the United States, elected in a free election, proposed a Disinformation Governance Board, apparently to identify speech that he didn't like and have the Federal Government do something to restrict that speech.
I will guarantee you they would have been restricting free speech when it came to immigration policies. They would have been for restricting free speech if it intervened with the type of ideas they wanted to instill in kindergarten or first grade or second grade students with regard to human growth and development programs.
In any event, the totalitarians are at the gates. They are taking over Western Europe, and the United States is
If you look at the Disinformation Governance Board, right now, there were enough Republicans, enough free speech news outlets, probably even enough Democrats to prevent the Disinformation Governance Board from going forward. If you look at the elections since then, the type of radical Democrats who are replacing the handful of commonsense Democrats who are still left, I am afraid that in 3 or 4 years, our country will have a Disinformation Governance Board.
What is going on in this country that we are restricting free speech and hate law enforcement, at least immigration law enforcement, so much that you can bite off a finger of an ICE agent and nothing will happen to you? I believe what it is, is a psychological problem. It is something that a few conservatives in the areas of psychology and psychiatry have to identify. I will refer to it as ``Thunberg syndrome.'' You may remember the little girl who, about 10 years ago, became famous in Sweden for pushing the global warming hoax.
This little girl was in a Western country, a well-off family, somebody who hypothetically should have been happy, right? According to her father, Greta Thunberg was unhappy, despite all her material wealth. I think that is true of a lot of people, sadly. They are spoiled people with time on their hands in the West.
She became happy by spending all her time pushing this global warming stuff. Do you know why it made her happy? Because she had a purpose in life, and everybody, to be happy, needs a purpose in life. This little girl, who presumably had enough money, didn't need a job--her parents took care of her--was, not surprisingly, unhappy, depressed, so that was her cause.
Eventually, she took up other causes. When the horrific Hamas invaded Israel and killed over 1,000 Israelis, she decided to take up that cause and decided to be hostile toward Israel and in favor of the terrorists. It is not surprising why. She hated the West. She hated herself.
In the Israel-Hamas war, if you want to call it that, Hamas and what you would call Palestine, they were, as many Third World countries are, corrupt, and being corrupt, they were poor.
The leadership would transfer the money they got from Europe to Qatar or to Paris. Therefore, seeing a corrupt, unhappy region in Gaza and a region, by the way, of bored people because they were living off of welfare largely, in a choice between that and a well-run, Western, honest country like Israel, Greta Thunberg got more joy out of engaging in protests or whatever these people do to try to help the Hamas group that brutally killed a thousand people.
Our country has to identify Thunberg syndrome and see what we can do to prevent it from taking over our country. Because just as Greta Thunberg suffers from this psychological problem, I believe the person who bit off the finger of the ICE agent and most of these protesters in Minneapolis also suffer from Thunberg syndrome, in which they hate America, in which they want us to adopt policies that will guarantee the destruction of America.
They are now clearly a majority in the wildly wealthy city of Minneapolis. These people are also a majority in many wildly wealthy cities in California and in New York City. Unless we find a way to deal with their psychological problems, it will be the end of the U.S.
Prior to coming down here today, I attended a little program put on by Stephen Miller, who is a brilliant economist, talking about how the economy is growing in the U.S., and we should all be so happy.
As a Republican, I should think, well, that is good news because it means it is more likely that I am going to be reelected next year in November, and my colleagues are going to be reelected in November. I wasn't quite as happy as I should be because I think who wins these elections is not just determined by whether the Republicans do a good job of having a strong economy.
In fact, we have done a very good job of improving the economy, but what scares me is not that. What scares me is the well-off, unhappy people who, despite the fact that they got a raise next year, despite the fact that their 401(k) went up, are going to be unhappy because they suffer from Thunberg syndrome. They are too spoiled, and as a result, they are going to vote for the party that is in favor of immigration.
It even has prominent members who want to get rid of ICE, which is just as absurd as saying prominent members who want to get rid of the police department.
I am afraid that that message of no enforcement of immigration laws and restricting the First Amendment so you can't be critical of immigration or can't be critical of weighing in on what we teach young children about sexual activity, that those people, for whatever reason, in favor of abortion till birth--which is so grotesque that the people I deal with back home don't even believe the Democrats are for that because it is so preposterous, but they are. I am afraid that people like that are going to carry the day in the November election.
Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with are not traditional things. We are doing a great job in the economy. What I am afraid of is the increasing number of spoiled Americans who have become like Greta Thunberg--anti-Westerners, anti-American people--who want elected officials who share their view.
By the way, since we did touch upon the economy, I want to point out something recently that was pointed out to me by Steve Miller. In the most recent jobs report, there were some jobs we got more of and some jobs we got less of.
There was a significant increase in private-sector jobs. Private- sector jobs are very important because private-sector jobs lead to wealth. I, of course, right now have a government job. During this time period, the number of government jobs fell; with private-sector jobs up 172,000 and government jobs down 42,000.
Maybe many Americans don't realize that when we hire more IRS agents, that is supposed to be a good thing and the sign of a strong economy. That is the way they compute them. If we hire more bureaucrats to look at a computer screen and do nothing in the Department of Defense, that is also supposed to be a sign of a booming economy because we have more jobs.
In fact, the difference between the--one of many differences between the Trump administration and the Biden administration is the Biden administration, when they improved employment, they had the government hire more people. They said: Look, this is great. We have the government hire more people.
When the Republicans took over, we did not consider hiring or laying off more people staring at computer screens, doing very little, that were identified by DOGE. Those were the areas where employment went down. Areas where employment went up were areas like, in particular, manufacturing in which we were producing more things that people use and making people wealthier.
Remember in the future, America, that when you hear statistics about employment going up or down, you should ask what type of employment is going up or down. Is it like Donald Trump wants, and the vast majority of Americans want, in which the number of people involved in manufacturing or service industries that make us a wealthier country are going up?
Do we want to have the type of figures--which kind of, I think, misled the American people--in which we hire more people for the IRS, we hire more people for the Department of Commerce, or we hire more people for the Department of Agriculture? None of these are making us wealthier, but they do generate statistics in which we say: Aha, more people have jobs.
Mr. Speaker, one more time before I leave here, I beg my leadership to do something about what I still believe is the number one problem in this country. That is the fact that we have many programs, most of which originated in the 1960s, which are designed to incentivize families to form without a father in the family. There are people who always wanted this.
Karl Marx always wanted it. There are all sorts of people in academia who read Karl Marx and think he had something worthwhile to say.
It is something Kate Millett, the founder of women's studies classes, which are all over our universities--there are relatively few majors, but there are a lot of people who take one of those classes as an elective. These people are anti-man. They don't want men in the family.
It is not surprising with people following this group that there is-- they would consider it successful to pass more and more programs that a family with a mother and father at home would not be eligible for. If they somehow get the man out of the home, they are eligible for it.
We are all familiar with these programs. One program is food stamps, what used to be called food stamps. We also have low-income housing where you may get an apartment that other people would have to pay $1,200 for and you get nothing.
Earned income tax credit can easily be, if you don't work too hard, getting $7,000 or $8,000 and getting nothing if you are married to a person with an income.
There are Pell grants. As one young gal about 22 years old told me, she and her husband got married before they had a child; but she knew lots of friends who weren't getting married because they got free college.
Daycare is another program in which you can pay to have someone take care of your kids while at work if you don't get married to the other spouse.
We have talked a lot about the Medicaid program. Again, we use the program for healthcare and poor people to try to penalize those foolish people who get married first.
It is easy. It varies from couple to couple how much they lose if they get married. I think it is safe to say it is very easy to come up with hypotheticals of $25,000 or more--a $25,000 penalty in this country from getting married and frequently keeping the men out of the family.
Mr. Speaker, I have known about this for some time. In case anybody wants to look at this a little bit more, they can look at books written by George Gilder in the late 1970s, which at the time were bestsellers and everybody talked about during the beginning of the Reagan administration. Unfortunately, nobody ever did anything about it.
He looked at what at the time was referred to as ``a ghetto'' in Albany, New York. He followed around a young couple, and the gal had just gotten pregnant. At that time, given George Gilder's upbringing, he thought that would be cause for concern for the couple. They would have to get married right away. They would have to work harder to support the child.
It was to George Gilder's surprise and shock that, as he followed this young couple around, they were thrilled that the woman got pregnant out of wedlock because it allowed them to go from government office to government office to get free food, to get what at the time was called the free AFDC check, to get free rent, and to get free medical care. They had it made in the shade.
Great, Mary is pregnant. We are not going to get married. We are just going to stop working now because of that.
Of course, what happened is over time Americans' behavior changed. We went from in the 1950s, before Lyndon Johnson was President, and in which about 4 percent of the children were born without a mother and father at home, to a steady increase for about 30 years to over 40 percent.
There are so many wonderful single parents out there. I know people who have done a great job of raising children as a single parent. Of course, we do have programs to help people who are widows or widowers in Social Security. That is not, I think, what is normally meant by a single parent.
Overall, when we go down this path, we have more and more people in a difficult situation who can be overwhelmed by this. It can hurt their children. I think studies will show various measures of success or failure, and it is much more difficult with a single-parent lifestyle. Something that is not publicized enough is it is horrible for the men.
George Gilder would tell us, if you look at a single-parent situation, the person who is penalized the most isn't the children or the single mom. The person who is penalized the most is the single man because his natural purpose in life is to support a family. The government has taken away his natural purpose in life. He, therefore, does not have a purpose in life.
In areas of high poverty, I think this is why we see so many single men having unhappy lives. If you pick up the paper and find out who is getting murdered, it is usually single men. If you look and see who is dying of drug overdoses, it is usually single men. Those who are not doing well education-wise are single men.
Of course, the reason the single men are doing so poorly is because of the great society programs which are designed to make those single men worthless. This is another reason why this body ought to take up these welfare programs.
Not only do we want what is best in the next generation for the children and not only do we want what is best in the next generation for the mothers, but we just treat the single fathers very poorly. We don't give them a purpose in life. As a result, so many are unhappy. So many wind up dying from murder, dying of drug overdoses, and just, in general, leading unhappy lives.
Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things that I hope we begin to take up next week. I hope our leadership team realizes that, while we are doing a good job on the economy, and we are growing private-sector jobs, and we are not having an artificial economic boom by hiring a bunch of IRS agents and calling it a welfare country, I hope we take up some of these other issues.
I hope our conservative opinion makers take up these other issues and educate the public that for America to become a great country again, we have to do something with all these unhappy Americans suffering from Greta Thunberg syndrome because they don't have a purpose in life and so they adapt the purpose of anti-Western, anti-American behavior.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid Democrat.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this is Black History Month, and I have been accorded the honor of presenting annually the original Black history resolution.
I am proud to do this in concert with a great organization. This organization has been bearing the torch, carrying the torch--the flame--of Black history now for so many years, founded by the Honorable Carter G. Woodson, who is widely known as the person who established this notion of a Black History Week, Black History Month. So I am
This is the preeminent organization of its kind. It is the leader of the pack when it comes to Black history, and I am proud to be associated with them and proud to tell you that this year, for our Black History Month, there is a theme: A Century of Black History Commemorations. A century, 100 years.
Today, I have chosen the topic, one that I think embraces something that is a little bit more contemporary and something that gives us reason to understand why we have to celebrate Black history.
The topic is Black History: Stolen Legacies. Stolen legacies. Black History: Stolen Legacies.
Mr. Speaker, fear not, because I want you to understand that I understand that this theme could be applicable to people of color in this country. It could be applicable to persons who are Latinos. It could be applicable to people who are Asians because the complete history of the country has not been properly documented and recorded. However, since it is Black History Month, I think it appropriate that I take up the cause and explain it as it relates to Black History Month.
Before I go on, I think I should remind people that I am also the same Al Green who has been censured. Censured, but not silenced. Censured, but not silenced.
I am proud today to take up this cause of Black history in Black History Month.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking of legacies that have been stolen, we annually honor General Gordon Granger for going into Galveston and informing the enslaved persons there that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to them and that they were free people, liberated people.
When we do this, however, we do not acknowledge the people who made it possible for General Gordon Granger to go to Galveston. These persons were members of the 25th Army Corps, approximately 1,000 persons of African ancestry who went to Galveston prior to Gordon Granger.
They made it possible for Gordon Granger to stand in Galveston and deliver general order No. 3. These were the persons who ran the Confederates all the way to the Mexican border--legacies stolen because they have literally been minimized and had their histories somehow sanitized.
Today, we want to make sure that we talk about these persons whose legacies have been stolen: 25th Army Corps.
Let's bring this forward to the civil rights movement. In the civil rights movement, we honor--and we should honor--Rosa Parks, a Black woman who took her seat on a bus in a racist southern town. When she took that seat, she ignited a spark that started the civil rights movement.
Rosa Parks should be honored for what she did. She was incarcerated for what she did. She should be honored, and we do honor her. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the legacy is incomplete because the history of this has not been completely told.
If the true history is told, you have to mention Claudette Colvin-- Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old high school student, member of the NAACP. Claudette Colvin, she is a person who, 9 months prior to Rosa Parks taking that seat, did the same thing and was arrested. Legacy stolen, legacy denied.
Claudette Colvin, not only did she go to jail and suffer the same indignation and humiliation as the Honorable Rosa Parks, but she did something else. She filed a lawsuit. She was a plaintiff in the lawsuit Browder v. Gayle.
This is the lawsuit that brought the Montgomery bus boycott to a legal end because it was under the pen of the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, Jr., a Federal district court judge, who ordered that that bus line be integrated and no longer segregated.
This was the dispute that took place when Dr. King was promoted to the leadership of the civil rights movement. This is where he led the people in this bus boycott to make sure that, at some point, Black people could sit on any seat on the bus that they chose to, because they couldn't.
You could take a seat on the front or somewhere near the front, and people could simply say: Move back. There is a White person who needs your seat. Then you move back, and if another came on: Move back. There is another White person who needs your seat.
This is true history. This is the history that is untold.
So Dr. King led the boycott. Rosa Parks started the initiative, but it was Claudette Colvin who took the lawsuit to the Supreme Court, the lawsuit filed that eventually caused a judge, Frank M. Johnson, Jr., to rule that that line had to be desegregated.
Claudette Colvin has been denied her place in history. Very little is said about her.
Now, I would like to contemporize, and this is going to give people an understanding as to this pattern of denying Black people their proper place in history, this pattern of stealing legacies, of whitewashing history as it relates to Black people--and it happens to people of color, not just Black people--and people of color it has happened to in this country. So, let's now contemporize as it relates to Black history and talk about something that happened in the State of Texas.
We have a President of the United States who concluded that he had to have five more seats for the Republican side in Congress, five more seats to hold on to power, five more seats to continue to be the reckless, ruthless, lawless President that he is, five more seats. Because if he loses the House, he loses his ability to do many of the things that the House can constrain him and prevent him from doing, because the House controls the purse strings.
He said: I want five seats. Four of the five that he actually identified were minority coalition seats, where minority people were electing the persons of their choice, and they were electing minority people. Well, he wanted five, four of the five being these seats that could elect minority people, minority people coalescing to elect people, a legitimate thing for people to do.
Well, in so doing, he ordered the Governor to do this. The Governor got with the attorney general. The two of them worked it out such that seats were taken in Texas.
I am just going to focus on one of them. In Houston, Texas, we had the 18th Congressional District, historic as it is called quite often-- and I concur with the persons who would call it such; the historic 18th Congressional District--the 18th Congressional District, the district of Barbara Jordan, the district that had the great Craig Washington, Mickey Leland, Sheila Jackson Lee, Sylvester Turner, the 18th Congressional District, a historic Congressional District.
The 18th Congressional District was adjacent to the Ninth Congressional District. We will call it, for our purposes today, the old 18th Congressional District, and you will understand better why in just a moment, located adjacent to the Ninth Congressional District. In fact, if you look north and south, the 18th was at the top, and the Ninth was under the 18th. The Ninth Congressional District was one that elected a person of color, as well.
The President and the Governor decided that they would do something called crack. This is where you break a district, and then you pack-- you take it and push the persons in those two districts together, but in so doing, you eliminate a district. In this case, that is what they did. So they cracked, and they packed. They stacked. They put the Ninth and the 18th together.
When they put the Ninth and the 18th together, they eliminated the possibility for a person of color to be elected in the Ninth District by moving the lines for it over to another area.
Now, I shouldn't say ``eliminate.'' Anything can happen. My belief is that there are capable, competent, and qualified people running, but the prognostication is that the configuration of it in terms of the numbers is likely to elect a conservative person, probably a very conservative person. My hope is that won't happen.
In any event, coming back to the Ninth and the 18th, when they combined these two districts, they eliminated the possibility for the people of these two districts to have two Representatives in Congress. They eliminated that possibility, and they made it possible for only one to come from these two districts, only one person
Historically, a Black person has represented the Ninth, and Black people have represented the 18th in Congress.
When this was done, if you look at it just numerically, the people of the Ninth are losing a Representative if you look at numbers, but if you look at it deeply, within what happened, they put more of the people from the Ninth District in this new 18th than from the old 18th District. Approximately two-thirds of the people in this Ninth District are in the new 18th District. Now, you have a district with 18 on it as its number that is packed with people from District Nine.
Another way to look at it, to simplify, if you have two pies, and you take a slice out of one pie and you decide you are going to add it to another pie, but only take two slices from the other, and then you combine them to create three pieces of pie, there would be two pieces from the Ninth District creating this pie and one piece from the 18th.
That is almost what has happened here, if not exactly what has happened. Two-thirds of this 18th consists of people from the Ninth Congressional District.
Now, why is this such a dastardly thing? Because in Texas, we have struggled for minority people to have representation, from White primaries--and a person in Houston, Texas, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. His name was Lonnie Smith. He was a dentist. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court to defeat White primaries. When the Supreme Court said, no, you can't have White primaries, what did Texas do? Texas decided to have White pre-primaries--true story, White pre- primaries. It had to go all the way back to the Supreme Court, which said, no, Texas, if you can't have White primaries, you can't have White pre-primaries.
This is something that is consistent in Texas, in terms of its behavior as it relates to people of color having proper representation in Congress.
We now have a circumstance where but one person of color will now be coming from the Houston area because of these two districts. But one will come from the two districts that have been combined.
Here is what I have done for our Black History Month. I believe that people who do such dastardly things ought to be recorded in history for their dastardly deeds. That is dastard with a d, not a b. They should be recorded in history as the dastards they are. That is with a b--no, excuse me. That is with a d. As the dastards they are, they should be recorded.
Let's talk about the dastards that have perpetrated this invidious discrimination on the people of the 18th and Ninth Congressional Districts.
The first dastard to be dealt with is, of course, the President of the United States, so I have a resolution that condemns President Donald Trump for ordering an unprecedented midcycle, racist redistricting effort in Texas--midcycle, racist redistricting in Texas, President Trump.
I have this resolution because a court concluded that it was racist. The court concluded under the leadership of the--I say ``leadership,'' the judge who handed the opinion out, who penned the opinion, a conservative judge, I might add, a Federal judge. This conservative Federal judge concluded that the lines were racially drawn--racially drawn. With the lines being racially drawn, this means that they were using racist tactics.
We want to condemn what the judge found to be the case in Texas from the three-judge panel, that this is racist. This is what a three-judge panel concluded: This is racist.
So, we have a resolution condemning the President for this racist behavior, as we should. We want history to know who these dastards are: the President of the United States of America, five seats, and make sure that in Texas, you combine a couple of them. That is what was done. A couple of them combined so that one Representative is lost to a minority community.
Well, they didn't stop there. As I said, the Governor performed this dastardly deed. For doing this, Governor, you should be properly recognized in history for the dastardly deed that you have done. I have a resolution that will honor you as such, Governor. This is a resolution that condemns Texas Governor Greg Abbott for delaying the election in Texas, the 18th Congressional District, beyond a reasonable time. The President ordered it. The Governor followed through, but he didn't stop there. The Governor decided that he would delay the election for a Representative for the new 18th Congressional District. Remember, we have the old one that will no longer exist after this year, and the new one, which will then move forward, that has been-- where we have two districts combined.
The Governor didn't just stop with combining the districts. He decided he would delay the election for almost a year.
Just recently, a person was elected to represent this old 18th Congressional District, and now we have an election coming up for the new 18th Congressional District. If it sounds confusing, it is.
On March 3, there will be an election for the new district, but the Governor delayed the election for the old district for almost 1 year. It was just recently that we had the election for the old 18th Congressional District.
For this Governor, for your dastardly deed, we made a record, and we are going to honor you for what you have done in delaying the election for some unreasonable amount of time. History ought to know who you are and what you did.
But we are not going to stop there. We have to now recognize that there are some other dastards involved here. We already acknowledged the President as a dastard and the Governor of the State of Texas as a dastard.
Now, we have to talk about the Houston Chronicle. The Houston Chronicle, for whatever reasons, wittingly or unwittingly, has joined forces with these two dastards. The Houston Chronicle has published stories, many of them wherein they have indicated in the stories that two Members of Congress passed, and they did, and that, as a result of these two Members passing, the Houston Chronicle believes that ageism is an appropriate thing for them to express continually in their newspaper.
The Houston Chronicle has engaged in what I call ageism, and if you read the stories, I think you will come to the same conclusion. So, they decided they would engage in this ageism.
Here is what they have done. They continually write stories wherein they talk about the death of these two iconic persons, two great heroes in Texas history. We don't want their stories diminished in any way. That would be the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee and the Honorable Sylvester Turner.
The Houston Chronicle, one of the dastards, the Houston Chronicle is engaging in ageism, and here is how they are doing it. The Houston Chronicle has concluded that ageism is appropriate because the two persons who preceded the person who is running now, they died while in office. Somehow, they have decided to charge their deaths with this monthlong, many months long, almost 1 year long delay in an election. They talk about their deaths and convince people that you have to be careful, that people can die. So, if the next person dies, the Governor would do the same thing. Rather than blame the Governor solely, they have now transferred some of this to the persons who died.
This is the Houston Chronicle. They are committing ageism by saying that people don't want to have another person who is of a certain age, because if you do that, then that person might die.
Who can guarantee life? No one knows for whom the bell will toll next. No one can guarantee life. Young people die every day. No one can know. But the Houston Chronicle has made it their mission to campaign on this issue.
Here is what is interesting about what the Houston Chronicle is doing. They only apply that theory to a person of color. Senator Cornyn is running. If Senator Cornyn wins, he gets a 6-year term. Senator Cornyn will be among the oldest in the Senate, but they don't apply that to Senator Cornyn. They have not tried to pressure Senator Cornyn out of a race. In fact,
Senator Cornyn has Wesley Hunt running against him. He is a younger person. They haven't said that you ought to elect Wesley Hunt. No, they have said to elect John Cornyn.
Well, what is it about these two people that makes them different from the other scenario that I have called to your attention? What is it, Houston Chronicle? Yes, you are going to see this. You are going to see me. I do not fear the Houston Chronicle. What is it about this that allows them to do exactly what they have done?
Well, Wesley Hunt happens to be a person of color. John Cornyn happens to be a White man. The Houston Chronicle has a different standard when it comes to John Cornyn.
Just think about that. Think about that, a different standard.
They have an all-out campaign going on. You might say they are the campaign. Well, for your dastardly deeds, Houston Chronicle, you, too, will be recorded in history with a resolution.
Now, I want to say just a few more words about these people that they have demeaned. First, you heard me mention Al Edwards earlier. He is the father of Juneteenth, the father of Juneteenth. We have a resolution honoring him as such. For Sylvester Turner, a person who united diverse communities in Houston for 8 years as mayor, we have a resolution honoring him for his being that person who created a symbiosis in Houston, having people of different hues, different ethnicities, from different places around the world come together.
Finally, we have a resolution honoring the life and enduring public service of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
I--personal pronoun--will not allow their legacies to be stolen. I will not. And I will not allow dastards not to be recorded as they properly should be in history. They will not escape history.
Mr. President, you won't escape history.
Mr. Governor, you won't escape history.
Houston Chronicle, you won't escape history.
Now, I want to say just a word about the top culprit in the process, and that would be the President. The President is the biggest dastard in the country. President Donald Trump is dastard number one.
This says: ``Countdown to Impeachment.'' This is the President of the United States of America seated here. I am proud to tell you that I stood right over there and told the President to his face that you don't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. This was at a joint session of Congress. This dastard said that they weren't going to do it, and, lo and behold, the dastard did it. They cut about a trillion dollars out of healthcare. This is the dastard who perpetrated the deed. He ought to be recognized in history as the person who did the greatest injustice to healthcare the country has ever seen, Donald John Trump.
But he has gone beyond this. His behavior is something that is difficult to codify, difficult to explain, but I will tell you this: He went too far just recently. He has gone too far on many other occasions, but recently, he went too far again.
This time, this dastard, Donald John Trump, sent out a meme wherein he had the gall, unmitigated as we say, where he had just the low-down, dirty instinct to send out, to post, a picture of the Honorable President Barack Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama, to picture them as members of the primate family. That is what this dastard did to two of our heroes of Black history.
If he had his way, there would be no Black history. He is the person who has decided that Black history is going to be minimized because we talk too much about slavery. He wants slavery to be whitewashed. There are people in Texas who call it involuntary relocation.
Murder, rape, and 240 years of working without a paycheck is involuntary relocation?
This dastard supports these kinds of things, this dastard. That is why we have this across the top of this poster, three words, countdown to impeachment. Countdown to impeachment.
Yes, Mr. President, I don't speak for anybody but myself. I don't speak for any party. I don't speak for anyone, well, except myself and everybody who agrees with me. That is whom I speak for. Mr. President, not only are you a subject of impeachment, but now Ms. Noem is a subject of impeachment.
Yes, Ms. Noem, I have signed Articles of Impeachment against you. My hope is that you do what you should do, in my opinion, which is resign. I don't think the President would ever fire you, but you have blood on your hands. You have tried your best to cover up what happened when two American citizens, who were unarmed, lost their lives at the hands of the constabulary. You have blood on your hands. You should be impeached.
You also should go to jail because you tried to cover it up. There is a law that deals with this kind of behavior. When you know that a felony has been committed--you know that a felony has been committed, and you don't report that felony and then you try to cover it up, that is a crime.
Somebody ought to check out 18 U.S.C. section 4. Yes, you committed a crime. You ought to be locked up.
People on the other side are notorious for having said: Lock her up, talking about a Democrat. Here is your chance to repeat your chant: Lock her up. Lock her up.
Lock up Ms. Noem for what she has done. Impeach Ms. Noem is what we should do. Aside from impeaching her, she gets her marching orders from this dastard; he has to be impeached too. We cannot allow this to go unnoticed and unchallenged. I cannot. I say we and all of the people who agree with me. There are a good many who do not, and I don't want to discredit them in any way, but I cannot.
So, we are in a countdown to another impeachment. I am going to call this the Black History Month impeachment because I am going to deal with the racism that this President perpetuates, the racism that he perpetrates, the racism that he places in policies that are harmful to the American public. I am going to deal with that. Then we will give people a chance to decide whether it is as bad as you say it was. You have been on television talking about how this horrible deed was perpetrated by this dastard.
Let's see if you really believe what you have said. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for speaking ill of Congress. So don't say you can't impeach for this kind of dastardly behavior from this dastard. Don't say that you can't do it, because we have seen it done. We have seen it done by people who were closer to the drafting of the Constitution than we were. So they probably had a better sense of what impeachment was all about than these so-called scholars who have decided that impeachment has to have so many lofty goals achieved before you should bring articles. That is not true.
Whatever the House says impeachment is, that is what it is. It is not appealable. It is a political question. It is not something that requires a violation of a statutory law. So if you believe what you have been propagating when you say that this was such a bad thing that the President did with these memes, then we will give you an opportunity to express that here on the floor of the Congress of the United States of America.
I just believe we have an obligation to do this. I don't think that we should stand by, we, meaning the people who agree with me. People who don't agree, they will do what they do. That is okay with me.
I am going to vote my conscience. I ask others to vote theirs. Just vote your conscience, that is all I ask. If we vote our conscience, I hope that in the end, maybe not today, but someday--Stevie Wonder has a song where he says: ``someday at Christmastime.''
Maybe someday in this near future, in my lifetime, this dastard will be impeached. I guarantee you this, the Record will show that at least one Member, one Member, stood right here in this House and read Articles of Impeachment to remove this dastard from office for the racism that he perpetrates and perpetuates.
For edification purposes, those who tolerate racism perpetuate racism. If you tolerate it, then you perpetuate it. I will not tolerate it. Of course, there are those who will always say: Al, you stand alone.
Mr. Speaker, on some issues, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to discuss two votes that occurred this week that have been broadly characterized as relating to tariffs. However, the issues are a little more nuanced than they have generally been portrayed.
Let's start with the vote that occurred on Wednesday. It is always good to look at the actual text because that, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters. This was a vote on a rule which is a kind of arcane procedural mechanism that we have here in the House for bringing bills to the floor for consideration and setting the terms of debate.
When you vote on the rule, Mr. Speaker, you are not voting on the bills themselves, you are just bringing them to the floor where they will eventually be voted on.
There is this norm of voting in favor of rules, which I have always done, because if you don't do that, Mr. Speaker, then the business of the House grinds to a halt.
The only times in which I haven't done that are when the form of a rule, the mechanism of a rule, is abused for some purpose that actually impacts policy.
That is what we had in this particular rule. At the end of it, which was a normal rule for most purposes, but at the very end, Mr. Speaker, you had tacked on this peculiar provision which starts by saying that each day during the period from February 10, 2026, through July 31, 2026, shall not constitute a calendar day.
So that is a little odd on the face of it, simply fiating that somehow these days of the months in the calendar year, February 11, February 12, February 13, and so on all the way to July 31 are somehow now by legislative decree not days.
Now, I had actually voted against this very same provision in November when the only thing that was different were the dates. As a matter of fact, there were enough votes to stop that rule from taking effect when we originally voted on it in November, but then there was a huddle among House leadership and some of those who were opposed to it. I won't get into the nature of what was discussed, but you can sort of connect the dots because after this rule passed, there was then another one that changed the end date, in that case, from March 31 to January 30.
January 30 was set to be the agreed upon end day for this accounting trick. So I was pretty surprised when January 30 comes and goes, and then we get this new provision saying: No we are actually now going to extend this all the way out to July 31.
Let's go out further in the text here. It says that these months shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to various resolutions declaring a national emergency. The National Emergencies Act is a statute that gives the President the power to declare a state of emergency. It also gives Congress not just the power but the obligation to evaluate every 6 months whether we are still in a state of emergency. Congress shall consider it, is what it says.
For example, a few years ago this is how we terminated the COVID state of emergency. I was the cosponsor of that resolution actually, and it got so much bipartisan support in the House that President Biden, even though he was initially opposed, signed it into law. That is how the COVID emergency was brought to an end.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, we were being asked with this language here to say that you are not allowed to do that, Congress will be cut out of its statutory role in evaluating whether we still have an emergency for these designated emergencies and for this designated period of time.
As such, it was limiting the power of our Members to weigh in on these very important questions. This runs contrary to everything I have ever believed when it comes to states of emergency.
When I was in the legislature in California, and even in the early days of COVID, I was very much opposed to the legislature having no role in determining whether we were in a state of emergency. I introduced a resolution many times on whether or not the state of emergency should continue. Therefore, of course, I would not support cutting Congress out of that process entirely here.
In effect, what we were being asked to do with this very peculiar provision was to abuse the procedural vehicle known as a rule to legislate a fiction that a day is not a day, to countenance endless emergencies, endless states of emergency without congressional oversight in defiance of every principle I have ever fought for and to surrender our own power as Members of the House in relation both to our own leadership and the executive branch. That is something I was not going to do. There was bipartisan support that this was not a good idea.
The rule did not pass, meaning that this accounting trick of a day is not a day is no longer in effect. As such, a resolution has now ripened regarding one particular state of emergency. This is to say, Congress playing the role that is in law that every 6 months it should evaluate whether an emergency still exists. This is what we voted on yesterday. This was Congress exercising its statutory responsibility to determine whether an emergency declared by the President is still in effect.
Now, because we have had these delays in terms of Congress doing this, it has actually been a year since this particular emergency was declared by the President, on February 1, 2025.
If you look at the language of this--this is the entire resolution-- it simply says that the national emergency declared by finding of the President is hereby terminated.
The question on its face is not about whether tariffs are good or bad. It is not even about whether tariffs are a valid emergency power. That is the question that the Supreme Court is considering. Rather, it was about this particular executive order a year ago, which was titled as follows: ``Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border.''
The national emergency declared by the President was about fentanyl coming into the United States from Canada. We can debate whether or not that was truly an emergency at the time that it was declared, given that a tiny fraction of the fentanyl that comes into our country--maybe 1 percent or so--does come from Canada. Fentanyl itself, of course, is the most severe of emergencies for our country, but the specific question is whether the fentanyl coming from Canada is.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was an emergency at that time. After all, the President does have broad discretion in terms of declaring an emergency. The question for us in Congress 1 year later in exercising our statutory responsibility to evaluate this question is whether there is still an emergency.
I listened to the debate on this issue with an open mind. I listened to the comments of our very capable chair of the Homeland Security Committee here in the House saying that actually Canada has taken significant efforts to crack down on fentanyl ever since this executive order was issued. They have devoted $1.2 billion to it. They have stepped up internal enforcement. They have appointed a fentanyl czar. They have cracked down on precursor chemicals coming in.
There is way more fentanyl being seized at their border now. By some estimates, there has been a 97 percent reduction in fentanyl going over the border. It would appear that if the tariffs were designed to encourage Canada to take this issue of fentanyl crossing the border more seriously, they have been very effective in that respect. As such, the basis for the emergency that was declared does not appear to me to exist at this time.
Of course, it is also appropriate to consider the actual effect of the emergency power being asserted, which in
That is to say, if there are any other such votes on other declared emergencies that have been used to impose tariffs, I will evaluate the facts of each case individually in deciding how to vote.
Of course, the Supreme Court will be weighing in on a related issue very shortly, which is whether tariffs are a valid emergency power that Congress has legitimately delegated to the executive branch when a national emergency has been declared.
However that case might turn out, I do believe that it is in the national interest for important matters of economic and national security policy to be considered and debated by the House of Representatives. That is what we are here for. The view of our leadership that such matters should not even be allowed to be debated on this floor was, I believe, the wrong thing for our institution.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address one more topic today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce I am introducing the gas price reduction act or the gas tax reduction act, I should say, which will lower the price of gas for California residents.
The reality of life in California is this: We have the highest cost of living of any State in the country. We are the most unaffordable State. A big reason for that is because our gas prices are so much higher than anywhere else in the country.
There are various reasons why they are so much higher. In fact, they are going to get even higher with refinery closures that are happening, but a big part of the equation is that we have a much higher gas tax than anywhere else in the United States--71 cents per gallon.
All of this money, by the way, is supposed to be going toward transportation, so you would think we would have these beautiful roads throughout California, but quite the contrary, our roads are routinely rated as among the very worst in the country. When you pay the highest gas tax while driving over the deepest potholes, something is very wrong.
I have introduced a simple bill that puts a national cap on State gas taxes. There are only a few States right now that have over 50 cent gas taxes, so I figured that that is a good maximum, that no State should be able to force its citizens to pay taxes of more than 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. This will immediately save California drivers 21 cents a gallon and will prevent the tax from continuing to be raised by State politicians.
The way we are doing this has several precedents and is actually fairly routine, where we have Federal highway funds that come with a number of strings attached, a number of conditions. For example, States have to abide by the 21-year-old minimum age for alcohol, various drunk driving laws, and various vehicle weight laws, all of which are a condition of receiving Federal highway funds.
The mechanism here is exactly the same, that States, as a condition of receiving their Federal highway funds, shall not impose a gas tax higher than 50 cents on their residents. I think this will give our drivers, especially those who have to commute a long way to work, who live in rural areas some much-needed relief and be a much-needed check- and-balance against the politicians in Sacramento who continue to demand of citizens more and more of their tax dollars while delivering less and less in return.
